The CSC Is Investigating: What Its New NIL Enforcement Memo Means for Institutions

On August 20, 2026, the College Sports Commission (CSC) released a memorandum outlining how its Department of Investigations (DOI) is approaching enforcement of name, image, and likeness (NIL); revenue sharing; and roster limit rules. The memo signals that the CSC’s enforcement apparatus is fully operational and that Division I institutions should prepare for direct investigative engagement.

In a related development, a recent ruling in the House Settlement litigation has addressed the scope of the CSC’s authority to investigate NIL arrangements involving multimedia rights companies and third-party brand sponsors — a question with significant implications for institutional compliance. This alert examines both the DOI’s enforcement posture and the judicial proceedings shaping the boundaries of the CSC’s investigative reach.

The CSC’s Memorandum Regarding Its Department of Investigations 

Routine CSC Inquiries

The DOI is drawing on university compliance departments as a primary avenue for identifying and addressing three recurring categories of NIL noncompliance: unreported NIL deals, contractual obligations under NIL agreements that remain unfulfilled, and compensation that was not returned after a deal failed to clear the NIL Go review process. Through routine inquiries to compliance departments, the DOI has identified instances of untimely NIL deal reporting and failures to return payments for deals that did not survive NIL Go review. Although some of the matters resulted in the DOI issuing warning letters, the CSC memo notes that other inquiries are still under review and could result in more significant enforcement consequences. The DOI’s information gathering process highlights the importance of having internal processes for responding to and tracking DOI requests.

CSC Complex Investigations

Beyond routine compliance checks, the DOI is independently pursuing more complex matters using traditional investigative tools — including document production requests and witness interviews — directed at institutional personnel, student-athletes, and third parties. Importantly, the memo cautions that receiving a document request or interview notice does not indicate that the DOI has reached conclusions or that an investigation is nearing its end. Rather, these are fact-gathering measures that may be deployed at any stage of an inquiry. Moreover, the scope of the DOI’s interviews extends beyond the specific conduct under investigation. The memo indicates that the DOI may seek interviews to develop “background information” — including details about a witness’s prior institutional affiliations, recruitment decisions, and NIL-related business proposals.

The memo is clear that the CSC has shifted to a direct investigation model and that it no longer relies on the practice of institutions self-investigating potential violations. Institutions will thus have less ability to shape the investigative narrative, and the CSC expects cooperation from all persons it requests to interview.

Cap Evasion Investigations

The memo also reveals that the DOI has multiple ongoing, long-term investigations targeting potential cap evasion schemes and related NIL violations involving institutions, student-athletes, and third parties. The CSC is actively soliciting tips — including from athletic department staff who may have knowledge of recruiting practices, agent conduct, or suspicious business proposals.

The CSC has established an anonymous reporting portal on its website that accepts submissions by web form, email, text, and phone. The portal is designed to protect reporter identity — the CSC represents that phone numbers and identifying information are masked and that two-way communication is available without compromising anonymity. Disclosure of a reporter’s identity is described as voluntary. While the portal is open to anyone, the CSC specifically highlights student-athletes, coaches, and administrators as potential reporters. Institutions should be aware that this infrastructure lowers the barrier for current and former employees and student-athletes to report potential violations directly to the CSC, bypassing institutional channels entirely.

House Settlement Developments: Judge Wilken’s Ruling on Affiliated Entities

In a related development that may further shape the boundaries of the CSC’s enforcement authority, Judge Claudia Wilken (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) issued a decision in early August in In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW (the House Settlement), addressing whether multimedia rights companies (MMR) and third-party brand sponsors fall within the Settlement’s definition of “Affiliated Entities.” Judge Wilken affirmed the prior ruling of Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins (serving as Special Master), who had denied plaintiffs’ motion to categorically exclude MMRs and third-party brand sponsors from the Affiliated Entities definition. The Special Master concluded that whether a particular MMR qualifies as an Affiliated Entity may "require a fact-intensive inquiry" — a holding Judge Wilken upheld following de novo review.

Plaintiffs had sought broader relief, asking Judge Wilken to (1) reverse the Special Master’s order, (2) direct the CSC to cease investigating and regulating third-party NIL agreements involving MMRs and third-party brand sponsors, and (3) compel defendants — the NCAA and its member conferences — to produce documents and information concerning the CSC’s investigations.

Judge Wilken declined to reverse the Special Master's order and referred the parties’ dispute over the permissibility of the CSC's investigations of MMRs and third-party brand sponsors back to the Special Master for further proceedings.

The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, the court’s refusal to categorically exclude MMRs from the Affiliated Entities definition means that NIL arrangements involving these entities remain subject to scrutiny.  Second, the ongoing judicial proceedings may ultimately impose constraints on the CSC’s investigative reach — but until that question is resolved, institutions should assume that the DOI’s authority to investigate third-party NIL arrangements remains intact.

What Higher Education Institutions Should Do Now

Institutions that receive a DOI inquiry or investigation notice should consider engaging outside counsel before responding. In the meantime, institutions should consider the following proactive steps: (i) review and, if necessary, strengthen internal NIL compliance protocols — particularly processes for timely deal reporting and NIL Go clearance tracking; (ii) establish clear internal escalation procedures so that DOI inquiries are routed to appropriate institutional leadership and outside counsel without delay; and (iii) assess the institution’s exposure in areas the DOI has identified as enforcement priorities, including cap evasion, unreported NIL agreements, and third-party arrangements.

For guidance tailored to your institution’s circumstances, please contact one of the lawyers below or your regular Crowell contact.